07/23/2009

Appeals court declares police internal affairs files public records

UPDATED at 4:33 p.m.

Posted by David Kidwell at 3:32 p.m.

In a case some argue could throw open the long-standing secrecy behind police internal investigations, the 4th District Court of Appeals in Springfield has ruled internal affairs files are a public record regardless of the outcome of the probe.

Attorneys specializing in Illinois public records law said Thursday it is the first such ruling of its kind in the state and therefore binding on trial courts statewide. It could also have repercussions for long-running complaints about Chicago police brutality.

“This opinion is part and parcel of a general feeling that government in Illinois needs to be more transparent than it has been,’’ said attorney John Myers, who argued the case on behalf of Springfield dentist G. Mark Gekas.

The dentist filed a complaint accusing a Sangamon County sheriff’s deputy of physical abuse during a traffic stop, but it was determined unfounded by the sheriff’s Division of Professional Standards. Gekas then was denied a request to see records of internal investigations involving the deputy.

On Monday, a three-judge panel sided emphatically with Gekas.

“Citizens might want to see whether complaints that the Division determined to be unfounded are really unfounded,’’ wrote Justice Thomas Appleton in a 30-page opinion. “Obviously, citizens cannot perform this critique if so-called ‘unfounded’ complaints are exempt from disclosure ... Such an exemption would throw a cloak over potential wrongdoing and insulate officials from political accountability."

The Sangamon County Sheriff and the State Attorney’s Appellate Prosecutor—who argued the case—have 35 days to decide whether to appeal the ruling to the Illinois Supreme Court.

Police and government agencies have long denied public access to records of internal affairs investigations, citing a portion of state law that protects citizens from a “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."

The appellate court shot down that argument.

“What he does in his capacity as a deputy sheriff is not his private business," Appleton wrote. “Whether he used excessive force or otherwise committed misconduct during an investigation or arrest is not his private business. Internal-affairs files that scrutinize what a police officer did by the authority of his or her badge do not have the personal connotation of an employment application, a tax form, or a request for medical leave."

Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis made his views on the matter clear in March when he defied a federal judge’s order to turn over a list of all officers repeatedly accused of excessive force. Weis said he defied the court order to turn over the documents in a civil case to protect the privacy of officers wrongly accused.

U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman held Weis in contempt of court until he turned over the list several days later. Weis’ office did not return telephone calls about the new ruling, which potentially could make public all internal investigations in which officers are found to be innocent.

I could not think of a group more deserving of a little oversight. Interaction action with the pblic while on the job is hardly a privacy issue! If they want privacy leave me alone. What about my privacy when they arrest me bt fail to convict? Public record? Hell yea.

Wow. So I guess next it will only be fair that anyone's discipline record for any employer will be public information when they are found innocent. That must also include arrests of citizens when charges have been dropped. And counsels that you undergo with your employer. This is getting crazy.

At last, a piece about the mysterious world of internal police investigations. Unfortunately, unless you have connections or an impressive job title, your complaint filed against a law enforcement agent for physical or non-physical abuse will be dismissed. So much for the little guy and public records.

In this ruling, the appeals court did not limit the disclosure to police files or even government files, so it could be reasoned that the postal worker who has cancer and misses work can be forced to disclose his files on his tardiness. The social security administration worker who has a bad attitude because she has hemorroids and has to sit all day can be forced to give over information about her condidtion.

This is a very clear constitutional violation. In an administative investigation you are assumed to have no constitutional rights, so in the past information gained during those investigations was inadmissible in a court of law due to 5th amendment protections. However, now that the courts have been using evidence uncovered during these investigations does this mean the end of the 5th amendment protection against self incrimination?

This 5th amendment right is one of the cornerstones of our criminal justice system. If it can be thrown away for police officers, it will be thrown away for you next.

In this ruling, the appeals court did not limit the disclosure to police files or even government files, so it could be reasoned that the postal worker who has cancer and misses work can be forced to disclose his files on his tardiness. The social security administration worker who has a bad attitude because she has hemorroids and has to sit all day can be forced to give over information about her condidtion.

This is a very clear constitutional violation. In an administative investigation you are assumed to have no constitutional rights, so in the past information gained during those investigations was inadmissible in a court of law due to 5th amendment protections. However, now that the courts have been using evidence uncovered during these investigations does this mean the end of the 5th amendment protection against self incrimination?

This 5th amendment right is one of the cornerstones of our criminal justice system. If it can be thrown away for police officers, it will be thrown away for you next.

We the people deserve better from our government and those sworn to serve and protect. This new ruling will help serve that end. The people shouldn't have to fear criminals and the cops.

A special thank you to the dentist who fought and won this battle for us. You didn't deserve to be abused by a sheriff. Hopefully, if the police and his or her superiors have to be accountable to the public some of this will stop.

THEY'RE OUR RECORDS -- LET'S ASK FOR THEM

Seeking documents? Whether you're just starting out or getting stonewalled, send your question or problem to Tribune experts and we'll help when we can. Then join the discussion on the blog and tell us about your efforts as we highlight battles to pry loose government records.
 Archives
 Tips and strategy
 Database
 Find and contact your lawmakers

Legal disclaimer:

The materials on this site are intended to help citizens in their quest for public records and are for informational purposes only. The comments by Tribune reporters are not intended as and should not be considered legal advice. Although we endeavor to provide information that is accurate and useful, we recommend that you seek the services of a competent, independent legal counsel in the relevant jurisdiction to the extent you require legal advice.